Does the number of 6-monthly adjuvant zoledronate infusions received affect treatment efficacy for early breast cancer? A sub-study of ABCSG-12

BACKGROUND

The widespread adoption of adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy for postmenopausal early breast cancer (EBC) patients was based on results of the Early Breast Cancer Trialist Group (EBCTCG) meta-analysis. Despite multiple regimens evaluated, there was no signal of varying efficacy with type, dose/dose intensity of bisphosphonate administration. We evaluated the effect of early treatment cessation using long-term outcome data from the ABCSG-12 trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

ABCSG-12 randomized 1803 hormone-receptor positive EBC patients on ovarian suppression between 1999 and 2006 to receive 4 mg zoledronic acid 6-monthly or not (and tamoxifen or anastrozole, 2:2 factorial design). In the current study, we evaluated whether the number of zoledronate infusions had an impact on breast cancer-specific outcomes. We hypothesized that amongst patients who received at least one zoledronate infusion, the number of infusions had no effect on outcomes. Time-to-event endpoints were analysed with Cox models and Kaplan Meier curves starting from a 3-year landmark. BMD analysis was restricted to patients who participated in the BMD sub-study.

RESULTS

725 patients who received at least one zoledronate infusion were included in the time-to-event analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in disease-free or overall survival in the patients who received ≤6 zoledronate infusions (n = 170) compared to those who received ≥7 zoledronate infusions (n = 555).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparable to efforts to de-escalate treatment duration in metastatic bone disease, there was no evidence to indicate that a reduced number of zoledronate infusions is associated with reduced adjuvant efficacy. Further studies to define optimal regimens of adjuvant bone-targeted therapies are required.

Management of Progressive Radioiodine-Refractory Thyroid Carcinoma: Current Perspective

Patients with thyroid cancer (TC) usually have an excellent prognosis; however, 5-10% of them develop an advanced disease. The prognosis of this subgroup is still favourable if the lesions respond to radioactive iodine (RAI) treatment. Nearly two-thirds of advanced TC patients become RAI-refractory (RAI-R), and their management is challenging. A multidisciplinary approach in the context of a tumour board is essential to define a personalized strategy. Systemic therapy is not always the best option. In case of slow neoplastic growth and low tumour burden, active surveillance may represent a valuable choice. Local approaches might be considered if the disease progression is limited to a single or few lesions, also in combination and during systemic therapy. Antiresorptive treatment may be started in presence of bone metastases. In case of rapid and/or symptomatic progression involving multiple lesions and/or organs, systemic therapy has to be considered, in absence of contraindications. The multi-kinase inhibitors (MKIs) lenvatinib and sorafenib are currently available as first-line treatment for advanced progressive RAI-R TC. Among second-line options, cabozantinib has been recently approved in RAI-R TC who progressed during MKIs targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR). In the last few years, next-generation sequencing (NGS) assays have been increasingly employed, permitting identification of the genetic alterations harboured by TC, with a significant impact on patients' management. Novel selective targeted therapies have been introduced for the treatment of RAI-R TC in selected cases: REarranged during Transfection (RET) inhibitors (selpercatinib and pralsetinib) and Tropomyosin Receptor Kinase (TRK) inhibitors (larotrectinib and entrectinib) have recently expanded the panorama of the therapeutic options. Moreover, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown promising results, and they are still under investigation.

Pharmacologic management of metastatic bone disease

Bone is a common site of metastases, particularly in advanced breast and prostate cancer. Skeletal related events associated with bone metastases include pathologic fracture, need for surgery/radiation to bone and cord compression. These events cause significant morbidity and mortality. Bisphosphonates as well as denosumab act on the bone microenvironment and reduce the rate of skeletal related events by approximately 25%-40%. Hence, these therapies are an important adjunctive therapy in cancer care. Despite the established efficacy and recommendations for their use in many international guidelines, these bone modifying agents are underutilized. This review examines the currently available guidelines on bone modifying agents in metastatic bone disease and summarizes their efficacy, risk and comparative benefits.

[Osteoprotection in the management of metastatic prostate cancer: real-world data from Germany and decision guidance]

OBJECTIVE

Osteoprotective medications are a key element not only in the management of bone metastases of castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) but also of hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Additionally, osteoprotective drugs can prevent androgen deprivation-induced bone loss. The aim of this study was to illustrate the practice pattern of osteoprotection for prostate cancer patients in Germany.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We designed an online survey consisting of 16 questions. The survey was sent to the nation-wide working groups "Oncology" and "Uro-Oncology" as well as to colleagues from the departments of urology of University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (Campus Lübeck), Academic Hospital Brunswick and Technical University of Munich. Furthermore, we developed flow charts for decision guidance for osteoprotection within the different stages of prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Our analysis demonstrates a routine use of osteoprotection in the management of bone metastases of mCRPC. In contrast, osteoprotective medications are less often used for the treatment of bone metastases of mHSPC and for the prevention of androgen deprivation-induced bone loss. Our flow charts depict the different dosages and intervals for the administration of osteoprotective drugs in the different stages of prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Osteoprotection is not only confined to mCRPC with bone metastases. It plays a crucial role in the management of all stages of metastatic prostate cancer.

Updates in Management of Bone Metastatic Disease in Primary Solid Tumors with Systemic Therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to highlight novel and impactful discoveries in systemic treatment of bone metastatic disease in solid tumors published within the past 5 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

Major developments in systemic treatment of bone metastatic disease in solid tumors include evidence that decreasing frequency of dosing zoledronic acid in metastatic breast and prostate cancer maintains efficacy in preventing skeletal-related events while decreasing costs. The landmark findings on the use of Radium-223 to treat metastatic prostate cancer were reported in 2013. Recently, it has been found that not all systemic therapy combinations with Radium-223 are necessarily safe or effective unless bone-targeted therapy is also included in the regimen. More cost-effective dosing intervals of zoledronic acid and efficacy and safety nuances of combination radiopharmaceutical and chemotherapy treatment have been better delineated.

Safety and efficacy of extended dosing intervals of denosumab in patients with solid cancers and bone metastases: a retrospective study

Aim

More than half of patients with breast, lung, or prostate cancer who have bone metastases have evidence of skeletal-related events (SREs). Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to and neutralizes receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL) on osteoblasts and their precursors. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved dose of denosumab is 120 mg every 4 weeks; however, other schedules have been used in practice for patient convenience. Evidence for the safety and efficacy of alternative dosing intervals is lacking.

Patient & Methods

Adult patients with solid cancers and bone metastases who received at least two doses of denosumab 120 mg were reviewed. Patients were grouped based on an average denosumab dosing interval of <5 weeks (short-interval) versus 5-11 weeks (medium-interval) versus ⩾12 weeks (long-interval). The primary outcome was the time to first SRE while on denosumab between the short- and medium-interval groups. The secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), efficacy comparisons between the other groups, and safety events.

Results

There was no significant difference in median time to first SRE between the short- and medium-interval denosumab groups [33.2 versus 28.4 months, hazard ratio (HR): 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66-1.92, p = 0.91] or the medium- and long-interval dosing groups (28.4 versus 32.2 months, HR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.66-2.01, p = 0.62). Median OS was not found to differ significantly between any of the groups. There were significantly more hospitalizations in the short-interval dosing group than the other groups (55.2% versus 33.8% versus 30.4%, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Extending denosumab dosing intervals does not appear to negatively impact time to first SRE and is associated with fewer hospitalizations in real-world patients with solid cancers and bone metastases.

Real-world practice patterns and attitudes towards de-escalation of bone-modifying agents in patients with bone metastases from breast and prostate cancer: A physician survey

•

Questions around optimal use of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) still exist.

•

Most physicians are de-escalating BMAs in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

•

Practice varies according to patient insurance coverage.

•

There is interest performing further trials of de-escalation especially after 2 years of treatment.

Background

There remain questions around the optimal use of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) in patients with bone metastases from breast and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). A physician survey was performed to identify current practices, as well as perceptions around long-term BMA use, BMA de-escalation, and further BMA de-escalation after 2 years of use.

Methods

Canadian oncologists treating breast cancer or CRPC were surveyed via an anonymized online survey. The survey collected physician demographics, current practice patterns, perception on risk of symptomatic skeletal events (SSE) and BMA-associated toxicities, and attitudes towards further de-escalation of BMAs after 2 years of treatment.

Results

A total of 334 physicians in Canada were contacted, of which 295 were eligible on initial screening, and 65 completed the survey (response rate 22%): 35 treated breast cancer, 25 treated prostate cancer and 5 treated both. The most common BMA regimens in patients with no limitation in drug coverage were denosumab q4wks for 3–4 months followed by a de-escalation to q12wks (breast cancer) and denosumab q4wks (prostate cancer). In patients with provincial health coverage only the common choices were zoledronate q4wks for 3–4 months followed by de-escalation to q12wks (breast cancer) and denosumab q4wks (prostate cancer). There was equipoise regarding the benefit of continuing BMA beyond 2 years and interest in further trials of de-escalation of BMA in both breast and prostate cancer. The most favored alternative primary study endpoints to SSE were BMA toxicity (67.2%), pain (46.9%), and physical function (48.4%).

Conclusion

Despite their extensive use and costs, questions around optimal use of BMAs still exist. Practice varies according to patient insurance coverage. However, most physicians are de-escalating BMAs. There is interest amongst clinicians in performing trials of de-escalation, especially after 2 years of treatment.

Bone targeted therapy and skeletal related events in the era of enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate for castration resistant prostate cancer with bone metastases

BACKGROUND

In an era of multiple life-prolonging therapies for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), the optimal timing of initiation and duration of antiresorptive bone targeted therapy (BTT) to prevent skeletal related events (SREs) is unknown.

METHODS

To assess practice patterns of BTT use and its associations with clinical outcomes in a high-volume center in the modern era of metastatic CRPC management, a retrospective cohort of patients treated for mCRPC with BM between 2007 and 2017 was identified from a single institutions clinical research database. Study endpoints included time from the diagnosis of CRPC to the onset of SRE or OS. Cox proportional hazards model assessed association of BTT use with time to first SRE and OS.

RESULTS

In total, 249 patients were identified; median follow-up was 7.7 (95%CI: 5.7-10.2) years. On multivariable analysis, patients with 4 or more BM at diagnosis of mCRPC who received BTT with abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide as first line therapy had a 42% reduced risk of developing an SRE (HR 0.58; 95%CI: 0.36-0.95) compared to those who never received BTT or received it in second line. No such effect was observed in patients with 1-3 BM. No OS difference was noted in patients who received BTT, whether with first line therapy or without. This study is limited by retrospective nature at a single institution.

CONCLUSIONS

Our hospital registry data indicate a potential benefit in terms of SRE prevention for early use of antiresorptive BTT in combination with life prolonging CRPC therapies for patients with CRPC and at least 4 BM.

Long-term impact of bone-modifying agents for the treatment of bone metastases: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) for bone metastases are commonly prescribed for many years even though randomized clinical trials are only 1-2 years in duration. A systematic review on the risk-benefit of BMA use for > 2 years in breast cancer or castrate-resistant prostate cancer was conducted.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched (1970-February 2019) for randomized and observational studies, and case series reporting on BMA efficacy (skeletal-related events and quality of life) and toxicity (osteonecrosis of the jaw, renal impairment, hypocalcemia, and atypical femoral fractures) beyond 2 years.

RESULTS

Of 2107 citations, 64 studies were identified. Three prospective and 9 retrospective studies were eligible. Data beyond 2 years was limited to subgroup analyses in all studies. Only one study (n = 181) reported skeletal-related event rates based on bisphosphonate exposure, with decreased rates from 27.6% (0-24 months) to 15.5% (> 24 months). None reported on quality of life. All 12 studies (denosumab (n = 948), zoledronate (n = 1036), pamidronate (n = 163), pamidronate-zoledronate (n = 522), ibandronate (n = 118)) reported ≥ 1 toxicity outcome. Seven bisphosphonate studies (n = 1077) and one denosumab study (n = 948) reported on osteonecrosis of the jaw. Across three studies (n = 1236), osteonecrosis of the jaw incidence ranged from 1 to 4% in the first 2 years to 3.8-18% after 2 years. Clinically significant hypocalcemia ranged from 1 to 2%. Severe renal function decline was ≤ 3%. Atypical femoral fractures were rare.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence informing the use of BMA beyond 2 years is heterogeneous and based on retrospective analysis. Prospective randomized studies with greater emphasis on quality of life are needed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019126813.